[Engine-devel] PosixFS: GUI mock-ups have been updated

[Yair Zaslavsky]

On 05/11/2012 11:28 PM, Einav Cohen wrote:
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Ayal Baron" <abaron at redhat.com>
>> Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 11:03:04 PM
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Ayal Baron" <abaron at redhat.com>
>>>> Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 11:39:42 AM
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>> From: "Ayal Baron" <abaron at redhat.com>
>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 10:46:44 PM
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>>> From: "Einav Cohen" <ecohen at redhat.com>
>>>>>>>> To: "Andrew Cathrow" <acathrow at redhat.com>
>>>>>>>> Cc: engine-devel at ovirt.org, "Simon Grinberg"
>>>>>>>> <sgrinber at redhat.com>,
>>>>>>>> "Saggi Mizrahi" <smizrahi at redhat.com>, "Geert
>>>>>>>> Jansen" <gjansen at redhat.com>, "Ori Liel"
>>>>>>>> <oliel at redhat.com>,
>>>>>>>> "Yair
>>>>>>>> Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs at redhat.com>, "Ayal Baron"
>>>>>>>> <abaron at redhat.com>, "Miki Kenneth" <mkenneth at redhat.com>
>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 2:05:55 PM
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] PosixFS: GUI mock-ups have
>>>>>>>> been
>>>>>>>> updated
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The important thing is that it's clear what it is - eg.
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> remote/target not the local mount point. That could be
>>>>>>>>> accomplished
>>>>>>>>> in the tool tip, etc.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So if there will be a tool-tip (or similar) in the GUI
>>>>>>>> explaining
>>>>>>>> what this field is supposed to be, are you OK with
>>>>>>>> keeping
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> term
>>>>>>>> "Path" (in both GUI and rest-api)?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am , does everyone else agree.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> either 'path' or 'device'
>>>>>
>>>>> - "Path" it is.
+1 on "path" and this was my original implementation by the way.


>>>>> - Instead of a tool-tip, I suggest to use an explanation
>>>>> caption
>>>>> below the text-box (similar to what we have for NFS storage
>>>>> domain
>>>>> -
>>>>> see attached). Agreed?
>>>>
>>>> i.e. "Path to device to mount / remote export" or something?
>>>
>>> Yes, that's a good answer to the question afterwards :)
>>> But what do you think about the general idea of using an
>>> explanation
>>> caption below the "Path" text-box (instead of a tool-tip that was
>>> suggested here earlier)?
>>>
>>> Also, do you think that the above should be the exact phrasing? The
>>> NFS one is:
>>>    "Please use 'FQDN:/path' or 'IP:/path' Example
>>>    'server.example.com:/export/VMs'"
>>> so maybe a "Please use" should be incorporated in this case as
>>> well,
>>> maybe also an example, etc.
>>> What do you think?
>>
>> I replied after viewing the other message and disliking it (personal
>> opinion).  I prefer a static explanation (what the field is) rather
>> than an action request.
>> So in the NFS example I would've phrased it as "Remote path to NFS
>> export, takes either the form: FQDN:/path or IP:/path, e.g.
>> server.example.com:/export/VMs".
>> But in any event it is better to have consistency (so both messages
>> should probably be phrased similarly).
> 
> There is no problem changing the phrasing for NFS.
> 
> So for NFS, the caption will be:
> "Remote path to NFS export, takes either the form: FQDN:/path or IP:/path, e.g. server.example.com:/export/VMs".
> 
> And for PosixFS, the caption will be:
> "Path to device to mount / remote export".
> (no 'takes the form' or example provided)
> 
> Agreed?
> 
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> - What should be the exact phrasing of the explanation text?
>>>>>
>>>>>> "mount [-fnrsvw] [-t vfstype] [-o options] device dir"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> device is what is being mounted and in the case of NFS is
>>>>>> server:path
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is a reason why we termed it PosixFS and not SharedFS
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> users can specify local devices/FS's (and there is no reason
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> limit it).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note that if user defines a local FS and adds 2 hosts to the
>>>>>> Posix
>>>>>> FS
>>>>>> DC then 1 host will be non-op
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Miki - this is not cluster level seeing as PosixFS is a DC
>>>>>> type
>>>>>> (afaik) so no need for tooltips about that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the future when we get rid of the single storage type in
>>>>>> DC
>>>>>> limitation then we'll be able to define a local posixFS
>>>>>> domain
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> shared one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Andrew/Geert/Simon/Ayal/Miki/Saggi/others: Please
>>>>>>>>>> feel
>>>>>>>>>> free
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> suggest a new term, or vote for one of the
>>>>>>>>>> previously-discussed
>>>>>>>>>> terms ("Remote Path" / "Path" / "Mount Spec" / "File
>>>>>>>>>> System
>>>>>>>>>> URI").
>>>>>>>>>> If no decision will be made here, the term will
>>>>>>>>>> remain
>>>>>>>>>> as-is,
>>>>>>>>>> i.e.
>>>>>>>>>> "Path".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>